Why God Why: Art, Science and endless arguments

[Labyrinth]

It remains a mystery to me as to the constant argument between the Arts and Sciences as to which is more complex and/or important. The defenders of science argue that art is a load of pretentious bullshit aimed at making a lot of hype out of very little at all while the bastions of apparent creativity hold their noses in the air and scoff at just how materialistic science can be. In short, it's fanboyism amongst academia.

And really it's fucking stupid either way.

To begin with the people who are best in either field have abilities considered intrinsic to the others. Artists who demonstrate an analytical approach to their work (whether they're assonate or not) require scientific skills for the questioning of information and interpretation while scientists need to be creative in their thinking when it comes to the connections between different ideas and how to get from A to B in the ideas themselves. Scientists also need to be articulate in order to express their ideas to a wider audience. Artists need to understand the how of their medium. It all meshes together.

I would say that a lot of this debate comes back to pure stubborn tradition as they sidle around the middle ground which some professions, such as architecture, engineering design and the like, dance upon. To truly bridge the gap would mean not only admitting it didn't need to be made in the first place but would see each group validate the other and would naturally remove much ground for humour about just how snooty they can be. Here's looking at you XKCD. [http://www.poly.edu/library/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/puritycomicstrip.png]

For myself, I'm of both scientific and artistic traits. It's lots of fun to have that background and helps me to connect dots that just leap out of concepts. In many ways it comes into the idea of multiple learning styles, or Multiple Intelligences. [http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm] What then are your experiences with both Arts and Science, and the gulf in between? Do you think it should be bridged? Do you think it can?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I think they should meet up and be friends. I know it's possible, just think about the Mandelbrot Set.

I think if Science and Art were bridged then we'd have one of two things.

• A perfect society where we can solve every problem with ScienceArt
  Or
  A screwed up place like Rapture in Bioshock

I reckon it's worth the risk.

 

[Labyrinth]

Actually, I managed to miss out on Philosophy, which is another area bridging all sorts of academic gaps. Look at evolution, string theory, etc.

 

[Xorghul]

They both worship Da Vinci, so why the hell not?

 

[mot^juste]

I encounter this divide pretty much whenever my brother is about; I tend to take humanities, creative writing, etc courses, and as a stereotypical engineering student, he complains about the 'pointlessness' of it when the topic comes up. I chose to stop taking math and physical science a long time ago because it bores me to tears to write up lab reports exactly like everyone elses, solve problems in such and such a way, etc. But then I run into interconnectedness again, since I also am into comp. sci. Which I suppose leaves me with if I can't be creative with it, I don't like it. I see plenty of people who have strong ties to both art and science. One friend who is an artist and pre-med, for instance.

So, seeing that, I don't think a real divide exists at all, and the 'drama' for the most part is caused by people being people... IE: mean to each other.

I consider the purpose of art as benefiting people mentally. For instance I imagine many scientists were moved towards their studies by reading Isaac Asimov or Douglas Adams when they were young. Aside from inspiration, it's demonstratably health-promoting to have a creative outlet of some sort.

 

[Labyrinth]

I still reckon that students of the arts are just sore because they realised that they picked subjects full of fluff. Sorry, Labyrinth, but even as somebody who reviews things in his spare time, I have difficulty seeing the usefulness of arts subjects in many occasions.

I'd say that the science kids should get out every once in a while with a few buckets of paint, one brush and a canvas. It would be hilarious! And messy, but mostly hilarious.

 

[Labyrinth]

You've seen my art, and you may have seen my creative writing. Things go wrong when I acquire artistic pretensions.

Break free of the oppression of sociopsychological boundaries!

 

[Lord Krunk]

I see science as 'finding stuff out' and art as entertainment, so I never linked the two at all.

Both have their importance, one to stop us being bored and pay the bills and the other to... stop us being bored and pay the bills? Hmm, I think I'm on to something here...

Back to what I was saying; I think that Arts vs. Sciences is just as bad as console fanboyism. The fanboys think only of the consoles and not of the games (unless it's an exclusive), and it's the same, it seems, with Arts and Sciences.

"Science is useful for the betterment of society!"
"Art helps us understand society!"
"Science gave you acrylics and graphite and charcoal!"
"Art gave you your silly little diagrams!"
"Oh yeah, well Science is more important than Art!"
"That's what Hitler thought!"

And someone just pulled a Godwin.

Both have their purposes, but they shouldn't be associated with each other. At least not directly.

 

[Legion]

I see science as 'finding stuff out' and art as entertainment, so I never linked the two at all.

Both have their importance, one to stop us being bored and pay the bills and the other to... stop us being bored and pay the bills? Hmm, I think I'm on to something here...

Back to what I was saying; I think that Arts vs. Sciences is just as bad as console fanboyism. The fanboys think only of the consoles and not of the games (unless it's an exclusive), and it's the same, it seems, with Arts and Sciences.

"Science is useful for the betterment of society!"
"Art helps us understand society!"
"Science gave you acrylics and graphite and charcoal!"
"Art gave you your silly little diagrams!"
"Oh yeah, well Science is more important than Art!"
"That's what Hitler thought!"

And someone just pulled a Godwin.

Both have their purposes, but they shouldn't be associated with each other. At least not directly.

This, worded much better than what what I would have wrote.

 

[Gruthar]

Well I may have a bit of a scientific bias, but I think the root of the problem is that art is subjective, science is objective. There is a 'truth' underlying all scientific principles, such that any scientific accomplishment will undergo rigorous scrutiny. There is a 'right' and 'wrong' in science. I cannot postulate that the Earth is flat, or what have you. The universe is what it is, and we are only limited by our understanding of it.

Not so with art. I can ascribe all sorts of values to a painting or sculpture. I can take a bunch of rusty sheet metal, weld it together, give it an abstract title like "The Monolith of Utopian Dischord", and claim it represents the folly of man. And no one can disagree with me, because it's my 'interpretation'. Worse yet, there will be folks out there who claim they do see it, and give it validity.

I admire the technical skill and the aesthetics of any work of art, be it music, sculpture, paint, literature, or whatever. I can respect the different techniques and perspectives. Hell, I admire anyone who has developed and excelled in a particular ability or talent. It's when people begin assigning ephemeral ideas -- bordering on the synesthetic in some cases -- to their work, and looking down upon those who don't share their perception as uncultured or uneducated that I get ticked off. Let me rephrase that: abstract art annoys the hell out of me, because I often don't see any application of talent, aesthetics, or any emotional connection -- no apparent value. It just relies on some fanciful interpretation. And I realize that people may see something in a particular piece that I do not. But at the same time I have to wonder how many of those people are phonies, and how many are just deceiving themselves.

So that's why I like science: the phonies are eventually discovered.

I may also be a philistine. D:

 

[aussiesniper]

Spoiler: Lord Krunk's quite truthful snip

I see science as 'finding stuff out' and art as entertainment, so I never linked the two at all.

Both have their importance, one to stop us being bored and pay the bills and the other to... stop us being bored and pay the bills? Hmm, I think I'm on to something here...

Back to what I was saying; I think that Arts vs. Sciences is just as bad as console fanboyism. The fanboys think only of the consoles and not of the games (unless it's an exclusive), and it's the same, it seems, with Arts and Sciences.

"Science is useful for the betterment of society!"
"Art helps us understand society!"
"Science gave you acrylics and graphite and charcoal!"
"Art gave you your silly little diagrams!"
"Oh yeah, well Science is more important than Art!"
"That's what Hitler thought!"

And someone just pulled a Godwin.

Both have their purposes, but they shouldn't be associated with each other. At least not directly.

Spoiler: Gruthar's possibly philistine-related snip

Well I may have a bit of a scientific bias, but I think the root of the problem is that art is subjective, science is objective. There is a 'truth' underlying all scientific principles, such that any scientific accomplishment will undergo rigorous scrutiny. There is a 'right' and 'wrong' in science. I cannot postulate that the Earth is flat, or what have you. The universe is what it is, and we are only limited by our understanding of it.

Not so with art. I can ascribe all sorts of values to a painting or sculpture. I can take a bunch of rusty sheet metal, weld it together, give it an abstract title like "The Monolith of Utopian Dischord", and claim it represents the folly of man. And no one can disagree with me, because it's my 'interpretation'. Worse yet, there will be folks out there who claim they do see it, and give it validity.

I admire the technical skill and the aesthetics of any work of art, be it music, sculpture, paint, literature, or whatever. I can respect the different techniques and perspectives. Hell, I admire anyone who has developed and excelled in a particular ability or talent. It's when people begin assigning ephemeral ideas -- bordering on the synesthetic in some cases -- to their work, and looking down upon those who don't share their perception as uncultured or uneducated that I get ticked off. Let me rephrase that: abstract art annoys the hell out of me, because I often don't see any application of talent, aesthetics, or any emotional connection -- no apparent value. It just relies on some fanciful interpretation. And I realize that people may see something in a particular piece that I do not. But at the same time I have to wonder how many of those people are phonies, and how many are just deceiving themselves.

So that's why I like science: the phonies are eventually discovered.

I may also be a philistine. D:

I agree with both of these a little too much somehow.

 

[fulano]

It remains a mystery to me as to the constant argument between the Arts and Sciences as to which is more complex and/or important. The defenders of science argue that art is a load of pretentious bullshit aimed at making a lot of hype out of very little at all while the bastions of apparent creativity hold their noses in the air and scoff at just how materialistic science can be. In short, it's fanboyism amongst academia.

And really it's fucking stupid either way.

To begin with the people who are best in either field have abilities considered intrinsic to the others. Artists who demonstrate an analytical approach to their work (whether they're assonate or not) require scientific skills for the questioning of information and interpretation while scientists need to be creative in their thinking when it comes to the connections between different ideas and how to get from A to B in the ideas themselves. Scientists also need to be articulate in order to express their ideas to a wider audience. Artists need to understand the how of their medium. It all meshes together.

I would say that a lot of this debate comes back to pure stubborn tradition as they sidle around the middle ground which some professions, such as architecture, engineering design and the like, dance upon. To truly bridge the gap would mean not only admitting it didn't need to be made in the first place but would see each group validate the other and would naturally remove much ground for humour about just how snooty they can be. Here's looking at you XKCD. [http://www.poly.edu/library/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/puritycomicstrip.png]

For myself, I'm of both scientific and artistic traits. It's lots of fun to have that background and helps me to connect dots that just leap out of concepts. In many ways it comes into the idea of multiple learning styles, or Multiple Intelligences. [www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm] What then are your experiences with both Arts and Science, and the gulf in between? Do you think it should be bridged? Do you think it can?

The problem lies not so much in academia but rather in the concept of what art is, isn't, and what it stands for, and to mostly chalk it to fanboyism between academia is misguided...at best.

You speak of analytic skills for questioning and interpretation of information in the context of it being scientific but that is not the case. Anybody can analyse, question, and interpret, even run off the mill animals like cats and dogs hence their complex behavior. And anybody can connect ideas and be articulate, but that doesn't make them inherently artistic, or even qualify as artistic for that matter.

Einstein had artistic inclinations(he played violin quite decently) and he was a badass scientist, but he was not a consummate artist; in a similar vein Leonardo was an artist but aslo a scientist(and quite adept at both, dare I say), but not because he was a good artist, but because he understood the scientific method and had honed his natural sensibilities into artistic ones; but Michaelangelo, for example, in overall terms, was single minded in his ursuits, and its not like he was scribbling natural laws or drawing medical sketchbooks in his spare time.

One particular property is that art, at its core, is a luxury. It comes as natural as breathing and yet it's still a luxury. Why? Because we as human beings want art even though we don't really need it. What sets apart science from the arts decidedly is the method in which things are aproached, an overarching notion of utilitarianism, and the fact that most often than not, art itself is made with a purpose(though people can be fooled) and science at its core does not, or at least not one that is indistinct from us. In short: Art is antropocentric. Science isn't.

Think about it, does it even matter that art is art in the first place? Anybody can doodle in a sheet of paper or sing a song and hope for the best, but nope, that's not art...or at least not "high art", right?

In the end it comes down to your ideological bias of choice, but if we stretch our arguments as far as we can, in the end, what is it that really, really has priority for us as a species? Pure "artists" didn't build rockets, and pure "artists" didn't develop the vaccines for polio, just like they won't develop the cure for cancer, or AIDS, or come up with a way to avert mass extinction if a huge rock is about to collide with our planet, etc. Mankind was fending for itself long before the notion of art came at the forefront, and it only remained there because mankind was at a later stage of its development where it was allowed for the presence of the arts to be sustainable.

People can be such assholes like you wouldn't believe in pure science related environments, and for some reason the artsy world is like a magnet for a different kind of conceited, self absorbed, self important individuals who are just so much more "in touch with their feelings and/or sensibilities" than...the rest, whoever they are.

Do I think the gulf between science and art can be abridged? I don't know, and honestly I could care less about said gulf. I didn't make that gulf. They did. So I just stray from it.

So there you go.

 

[Labyrinth]

*Snip*

Actually, the purpose of art is something Darwinian science really struggles with. Peacocks for example. Where the hell is the evolutionary advantage to something which makes the creature more visible, expends copious amounts of energy to grow, and all the rest?

In short, it's to show that the creature CAN. The bird is healthy enough to waste that amount of resources, and strong enough to survive despite the risks.

Science can be seen to spring from a different approach to the same thing as some artworks. They both try to explain and examine the world around the creator. Inventions to solve problems, artworks to address them. That kind of thing.

 

[fulano]

*Snip*

Actually, the purpose of art is something Darwinian science really struggles with. Peacocks for example. Where the hell is the evolutionary advantage to something which makes the creature more visible, expends copious amounts of energy to grow, and all the rest?

In short, it's to show that the creature CAN. The bird is healthy enough to waste that amount of resources, and strong enough to survive despite the risks.

Science can be seen to spring from a different approach to the same thing as some artworks. They both try to explain and examine the world around the creator. Inventions to solve problems, artworks to address them. That kind of thing.

Yellow.

First, I disagree with you. Wholeheartedly. So, I apologize if any of my following answer somehow comes as condescending but I just love the story of the peacock(and no, this isn't me trying to somehow cover up for the fact that I would somehow feel compelled to be a douche). Now, moving on, but not so much because i will make a slight cultural parentheses...

The peacock's tail:The so-called "tail" of the peacock, also termed the "train," is not the tail quill feathers but highly elongated upper tail feather coverts.

Now, allrighty, moving on...

Peacocks are not artsy. It's a mechanism they use to attract them juicy females; So, you see, it has a biological imperative: Get The Chicks(quite literally).

Peahens do choose their mates based on the quality of their trains--the size, quantity, and distribution of those oh-so-pretty eyespots that you see distributed all around.

And experiments have shown that the offspring of the males with more eyespots are bigger and better at surviving in the wild than offspring of birds with fewer ones. Biological imperative, right there. And the peahens just can't help themselves at the presence of such...peacockness. So much that if there are more than one cocky peacock clucking about, they literally can't help themselves and so...king fu fighting! The winner takes the chick.

But, just so you know: It ain't no cupcake being a pimp.

It ain't all about pretty trains. If they become just a tad much on the pretty side, they may no longer confer a selective advantage. they might attract a new kind of predator or become too heavy to carry around. Then, the Beckhams, Pattingsons, and DiCaprios bite the dust, leaving the Joe Schmoe to carry around--that is until, of course, it all starts all over again and the Schmoes evolve into Beckhams, Pattingsons, and DiCaprios, and all the while the peacocks do keep evolving, getting stronger, healthier, and fitter.

See? no dramaz and no mistery. The risks are part of the game and do not go contrary to it(like in highlander).

And what did we learn of the peacock? Do not trust in the good intention of females. If the going gets tough they can always resort to having you duke it out with another guy to make up their minds.

Now, in all seriousness. Implying in the first place that there is something inherently artistic in the makeup of an animal is not exactly factual nor entirely logical per se.

Going a step farther: art is not really about the creator but rather about someone looking at a given piece at a given time, and that's because we've somehow defined that the engagement between art itself and "audience" is a one way street(which other than this mention I won't elabore upon because that would be OT). There have been cases of hoaxes even within the art community, and even stranger cases where someone mistook the actual paintings of an advanced computer progam for real art(yes, it was a machine hooked to an hydraulic arm, using actual paint and everything).

So, how can an antropocentric label(art) be somehow linked with anything biological at a base level?

And again, I do apologize if you somehow felt offended(though I don't see why you would short of you being wound too tight).

 

[Labyrinth]

*Snip*

My point was more the reason that female peahens are attracted. The why. It's evolved to be a display of excess, just as art is. The origins of art were indeed paintings on the rocky walls of caves perhaps to invoke good luck while hunting. These came from an excess of time and imagination. Imagine how much better the painter would have looked to his or her clan if the hunt depicted was successful.

Oh, and no I wasn't offended.

 

[zen5887]

Wow.. I really had no idea there was any 'tension' between Art and Science. As a muscian I have to acknowledge the scientific side to my art and even though I don't understand that side very well, I am aware of how important it is.

In short.

Why can't we just get along.

 

[fulano]

*Snip*

My point was more the reason that female peahens are attracted. The why.. It's evolved to be a display of excess.

Oh, and no I wasn't offended.

Peahens are attracted because of a biological imperative to procreate with a healthier mate. Period. It's us, the evolved apes, that make a big deal out of it.

There is no why, it is just a biologicl imperative(though then again you may feel compelled to disagree based on whatever philosophical leanings you may have).

At a base level mostly everything a species does is some form of biological imperative, and that includes the peacock. The male evolved to catch the female's attentions, and the female discriminates based on prettyness and fitness(in layman's terms), but if the peacock is too pretty and not fit enough he is rejected either by the female or by nature(he gets eaten).

The same thing could be said about the way you react in a certain way whenever you se a male that somehow "satisfies" whatever constitues for a base instinct(like a hardwired software program) you have by which you discriminate in order to find someone "attractive"(overall body symmetry, smell, etc.). It is your brain reacting and telling you that the dude is somehow healthy so you can mate with him and produce better, healthier offspring.

Not everything is an intellectual or aesthetic excercise, I'm afraid. But rather said labels like "artful," and "aesthetic" at its core stem from a function of something more base and primitive.

 

[Worgen]

yay endless arguments, Im going to argue this shit out of this... or I could look at porn.... yeah think its going to be porn